Talk:John Basedow

Improper removal of sourced content
The outcome of the AFD (Articles for deletion/John Basedow (2nd nomination)) was that the article needs tweaking, not wholesale deletion. The revisions made removed virtually an entirely sourced article. A person's career (and subsequent claim to fame) is not spam, especially when it is properly sourced. I've restored and expanded some of the content with additional sources. I'm willing to tweak the article as needed.StonefieldBreeze (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

How is John Basedow improperly promotional?
Why is the John Basedow article considered improperly promotional?StonefieldBreeze (talk) 19:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have raised the issue at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard.StonefieldBreeze (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've restored the external links and the sourced death hoax section. I don't see how a death hoax or external links to his relevant pages could be promotional? I've also tagged the article with NPOV as the current stub does not reflect his social media, speaking, or business activities. StonefieldBreeze (talk) 12:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Public Advocacy section
The section for public advocacy (Basedow is an active advocate for the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association) was removed of claims that the sources "Neither of these are reliable sources i.e. no "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".". Basedow is an advocate and has led the long island heart walk. I'll see if I can dig up more RS.StonefieldBreeze (talk) 16:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Adding a photo
I'm going to reach out to Basedow via social media and see if he's willing to donate a photo under a free licence to help complete the article.StonefieldBreeze (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've asked Basedow via instagram to resend the confirmation as it looks like the file was deleted due to lack of of permissions?StonefieldBreeze (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of interest editing
There seems to be a lot of COI editing on this article. I see a bunch of puffery and unreliable sources. This needs to be cleaned up. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

promotionalism
I reduced the content along the lines of "Basedow has been interviewed..." etc; preserving it here by providing this link. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The article has been repeatedly tagged with notability. To address WP:N concerns and to accurately reflect the subject's current standing, there should be a general mention as to where he's appeared. Perhaps the wording should be rephrased or the list amended, but the references should remain. There is no mention of his ongoing activities with Buzz60 elsewhere in the article, so that piece should be restored.StonefieldBreeze (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Removal of quotes from references
Several quotes were improperly removed from the references per WP:PUFFERY. This is a perversion of the policy which applies to the text of the article, and not the references. If anything, per WP:PUFF, having the quotes in the references disproves any concerns of WP:SYNTH and provides direct attribution.StonefieldBreeze (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:StonefieldBreeze please see WP:COI and disclose any connection you have with the subject (you've been asked several times). Note that per WP:COITALK protracted discussions are considered disruptive. Also see WP:ADVOCACY. Widefox ; talk 01:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As mentioned earlier, there is nothing to disclose. That said, the above issue regarding the rationale for the removal of quotes from references has not been addressed. As all additions have been sourced, I am unsure of how WP:ADVOCACY applies.StonefieldBreeze (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)